Debates of Feb. 12th, 2003

International Civil Aviation Organization

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on December 10, Le Devoir ran a headline that read, “Ottawa is teaching the ICAO a lesson by making it wait”, then added that the international organization will finally be able to take possession of its new offices provided by Quebec.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs confirm that the International Civil Aviation Organization may now move into its new offices without calling into question all of the benefits that it and its 33 member states enjoy under agreements between Canada and the organization?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this very complex issue is about real estate. There were negotiations between several parties, including the Quebec provincial government, the federal government and this international institution.

We will try to resolve the situation as soon as possible in order to keep this major international institution in Montreal to serve not only Canadians but the whole world.

Firearms Registry

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

We all share a concern about the costs associated with the gun registry. Will the Minister of Justice outline how he will achieve a more client friendly and cost effective gun control program?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about costs; therefore, he is talking about Bill C-10A.

Bill C-10A indeed talks about cost reductions with regard to the gun control program. It is a shame to see that the official opposition is trying to block that bill, which would save taxpayers money. That bill would be able to streamline the process. I look forward to the support of all members of the House.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would like to draw to the attention of all hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Pat Binns, Premier of the province of Prince Edward Island.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 29, 2003 by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt concerning undue interference by senior public servants in his ability to carry out his duties as a parliamentarian.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt for having raised the matter, as well as the hon. government House leader for his contribution on the subject.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt stated that on December 27, 2002 and from January 3 to 6, 2003 he attempted to conduct a survey of the views of public servants with respect to the impact of the government's bilingualism policy. He named a number of senior public servants from various government departments who he alleged had either forbidden their staff to reply to his survey, or indicated that the confidentiality of replies could not be guaranteed. These actions, he maintained, constituted undue interference in the conduct of his duties as a member of Parliament.

In response to the points raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, the hon. government House leader pointed out that there had been no attempt to interfere with the member's right to freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. Furthermore, he argued that an individual member's right to make inquiries on his or her own initiative should not be confused with the powers of inquiry vested in committees of the House. In concluding his remarks, the government House leader asserted that the manner in which the survey material had been presented had had a disruptive effect on many of the recipient government departments and their staff and that the managers in those departments were justified in taking the action complained of.

I have reviewed the facts relevant to the matter and wish to make several points.

First, it is quite true that the House has certain rights and privileges that are necessary to allow it to conduct its business in the Chamber and in Committee.

In his argument, the hon. Member for Saskatoon—Humboldt cited page 50 of Marleau and Montpetit, which states:

“Parliamentary privilege” refers more appropriately to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfil their functions.

Marleau and Montpetit goes on to state at page 51 that:

The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where Members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.

It is clear that the managers in certain federal government departments dealt with the disruption caused in their departments by the hon. member's e-mails by making various attempts either to prevent their staff from responding, to warn people of the risks that might be involved in responding, or to otherwise limit the negative impact on their networks and e-mail systems. The question before us is whether any of these actions constitute an obstruction of the hon. member's ability to perform his parliamentary duties.

In this regard, I would again like to cite Marleau and Montpetit at page 52, where the limitations of the application of parliamentary privilege to the individual member is described:

Privilege essentially belongs to the House as a whole; individual Members can only claim privilege insofar as any denial of their rights, or threat made to them, would impede the functioning of the House. In addition, individual Members cannot claim privilege or immunity on matters that are unrelated to their functions in the House.

Members do possess certain rights, privileges and immunities--freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, exemption from jury duty and so on--but these are finite and apply only in context, which usually means within the confines of the parliamentary precinct and a “proceeding in parliament”. In a 1971 ruling related to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker Lamoureaux made the following point:

In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.

In presenting his case, the hon. member argued that the directives to staff from managers with regard to his survey infringed upon his right to obtain information from government sources. Members have an undeniable right to question and obtain information from the government in order to discharge their responsibility of oversight. This function is chiefly carried out in two ways: by asking questions of the government either during question period or by way of written questions, and through inquiries carried out by committees of the House. Both of these proceedings are protected by the full weight of parliamentary privilege. It is not the case, however, that the privilege to seek such information extends to every aspect of a member's activities.

In a related case raised in November 2001, I was asked to rule on whether or not a breach of privilege occurred when the government ordered its officials not to appear before an ad hoc committee established by the hon. member and others.

I did not find that the situation constituted a prima facie question of privilege and made the following point:

I do not believe that any one of us has the right to call before us a government official and insist on answers to questions...(the hon. member) stated that the committee that he was chairing was an ad hoc caucus of members. It clearly was not a committee of this House.

In the case before us again, I cannot find that there has been any contempt or breach of the member's privileges. Had his survey been conducted in the context of a proceeding of this House or one of its committees, it would have been fully protected by privilege. Given the manner in which the survey was circulated and the fact that it was not carried out in relation to a parliamentary proceeding, parliamentary privilege does not apply.

I would urge the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt and other members to look to the other parliamentary options that are available to them in carrying out their duties. They will then be able to avail themselves of the full authority of the House in conducting their inquiries.

The House need not be reminded about the unprecedented difficulties that these mass e-mailings cause. The members will be soon, if they have not already been, informed of new guidelines to regulate this type of communication. In the meantime I know that I can count on the full cooperation of all hon. members to respect the guidelines in their future work.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14) to inform the House that the motion to be considered tomorrow during consideration of the business of supply is as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the introduction of a national identity card offends the principle of privacy and other civil rights of Canadians and this House therefore opposes its introduction.

This motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East, is not votable. Copies of the motion are available at the table.

Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission

[The Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to lay upon the table a certified copy of the report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick.

This report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Government Response to Petitions

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 34 petitions.

Canadian Firearms Program

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the HLB report entitled “Canadian Firearms Program Review”.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has received notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton and we will hear that now.

Privilege

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the justice minister's response to the question posed by the member for Huron--Bruce during yesterday's question period. I will be brief, as others may feel as I do that this is a matter of extreme importance to the House's overview and approval of public moneys, that is, the public purse.

The minister stated:

--up until the approval of the supplementary estimates, we were moving with what we call cash management.... The program is running at minimum cost but we are able to fulfill our duty.

That raises, I submit, an important question of privilege.

On Thursday, December 5 of last year, on a motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, the House reduced by an amount of approximately $72 million the supplementary estimates on votes 1a and 5a. The House agreed and voted on that reduction. The government has attempted to manipulate the public perception of this act by spinning the myth that it was the justice minister who withdrew those supplementary estimates.

That $72 million had been dedicated to the national firearms program. That motion of reduction carried in the House. That motion was the unequivocally clear expression of this chamber to disallow those moneys to the minister. To state otherwise would be patently false and misleading. The record is clear.

There is an unequivocal principle in our House that the estimates are the financial expressions of government policy. In brief, the approval of the estimates is the signal to bring on the adoption and consideration of the appropriation bill. In fact, Beauchesne's sixth edition, paragraph 968(1) states:

The concurrence by the House in the Estimates is an Order of the House to bring in a bill, known as the Appropriation Bill, based thereon.

By that December motion to reduce the Minister of Justice's estimates for the firearms program, the House laid down two principles. First, it ordered that no moneys for the national firearms program be included in the appropriation bill. Second, it clearly stated its disapproval, this chamber's disapproval, of the national firearms program. It repudiated the program by ordering no more money for it.

Furthermore it must again be emphasized that the estimates are the financial expression of the minister's policy contained in the national firearms program. The minister's usage of the phrase yesterday in his response of “up until the approval of the supplementary estimates” reveals his failure to accept that the House reduced to zero his estimates on December 5 just passed.

It was 112 years ago that the great commoner, Liberal William Gladstone, delivered a speech concerning public finance, specifically the financing of government by Parliament. That speech is printed in the 1892 book The Speeches and Public Addresses of the Right Hon. W.E. Gladstone, MP . Mr. Gladstone embodied the Liberal concern for Parliament's control of public expenditure, known as parliamentary control of the public purse. I am sure that hon. members opposite will want to hear what Mr. Gladstone had to say.

Remembering that the House denied the Minister of Justice $72 million on December 5, I draw attention to Mr. Gladstone's remarks as set out on page 343:

I must remind you of that which is apt to pass away from recollection, for the finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which...liberty has been gradually acquired.... If the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the control of grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison.

Mr. Gladstone continued a few paragraphs later:

No; if these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious methods, and, therefore, I say that public attention should be called to this.

Yesterday in question period the Minister of Justice stated that the national firearms program was working. He has said that a lot recently. The minister does not seem to understand that the order, as contained in the December 5 motion to reduce the estimates, binds him. In short, he is obligated to obey that order. He maintains that the national firearms program is running at minimum cost and that he is fulfilling his duty. He fails to recognize that his duty is to the House and its orders.

For the minister to assert that it is a good policy, clearly is not consistent with the position the House adopted by motion, the most recent position of the House.

Again I say that the minister does not accept the very clear fact that the House repudiated his estimates. Again I say that the House repudiated his estimates, which are the financial expression of the policy embedded in the firearms program. The House did not say anything about cash management when he asked more than two months ago for further funds. It said that the relevant estimates for the national firearms program were reduced to zero.

As a member of the House I voted on that motion. I, as did the House, indicated that such order of the House reducing the estimates would suspend the minister's ability to spend any more money for the national firearms program. That $72 million, which the House removed, was the total appropriation in support for that program.

That the minister stated yesterday that the registry was working, that it was operating and that it was taking registrations, is contrary to the order of the House. On December 5 the House ordered no more money.

It is clear that order means nothing to the minister. He is simply not obeying the order.

In the nineteenth edition of Erskine May on The law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, it states:

Every question, when agreed to, assumes a form of either an order or of a resolution by the House.

By its orders the House directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons whom they concern...

It has been more than two months since the House vetoed the appropriation for the firearms program. In parliamentary terms, such a denial to a minister of the crown is momentous.

The minister's response is a breach of my privilege and particularly the collective privilege of the House to control the public expenditure. The minister is breaching our privilege because of his disobedience to the order of the House and his refusal to comply with the Commons wish to deny him money.

I submit, based on the foregoing, that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member's question of privilege. I will bring forth a few quotes but first I will put this in perspective.

Approximately a week ago I raised a very similar issue which I am waiting for a ruling upon. This strikes at the very heart of democracy. It strikes at the very heart of what we do in this place. If we make decisions as a Parliament and those decisions are completely ignored and gone contrary to by a minister of the crown, that minister of the crown must be found in contempt of this Parliament. That is what is at the heart of this issue.

After reading the answer that the minister gave yesterday to that question, the first thing that occurred to me was, what is cash management. If we vote in the House to de-fund something, that program can no longer exist because Parliament has clearly indicated it no longer has confidence in that program when it no longer funds it. That program should have ceased. That did not happen, and that should be contempt of Parliament.

The minister is hiding money. He is deceiving Parliament by allowing a program to continue to be funded without explaining to us how that funding is taking place. Without this transparency the House cannot function and, by extension, democracy cannot function. The Canadian people are also being kept in the dark because we cannot get answers to these questions.

On page 141 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

That is what we are talking about and that is one of the issues with regard to what is being raised here today.

I also would like to read from Erskine May's twenty-first edition. He describes contempt as:

...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.

That is what is happening here.

We have made a decision. We are trying to function as a House and the minister is thwarting that. He is going against the entire intention that the House clearly signalled when it did not fund the gun registry.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you would rule in favour of the issue raised here. The minister clearly is in contempt of Parliament. I hope you will give this due consideration.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr.Speaker, it is a rare occurrence when a member of the government stands on a question of privilege to challenge what a cabinet minister has done. Therefore, I believe it is something that warrants our investigation.

Based on what the minister said yesterday, that the program was running at minimum cost and “we are able to fulfil our duty”, I presume he was speaking about fulfilling his duty to the program. However we have a procedural question being raised here today, a question of privilege, as to whether or not the minister is fulfilling his duty to the House in terms of the vote that took place December 5.

The government needs to disclose where those funds are coming from. If it is running this program at minimum cost, have other moneys been moved in, contrary to the vote that took place on December 5? The House made a very strong decision that $72 million would not be approved and the government agreed to that. There is a question here as to how this program is now running at minimum cost, and whether or not other funds have been brought forward to continue the program.

It is important that there be a full disclosure because, surrounding the issue of the gun registry, there is also the matter of tabling of reports a couple of weeks ago and the fact that not all reports were tabled.

This is something of great concern to all of us in terms of abiding by the principles and the rules of the House to ensure that there is full disclosure and that when we vote on something we are voting on the basis that we understand what has been approved and there is not then a backdoor route to continuing something that has not been approved by the House.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I also support the points that have been made already and that the member for Sarnia—Lambton has brought forward in an unusual way. It is unusual for a government backbencher to, in such a forceful way, outline the failings and the inadequacies of his own government and his own minister on this file in particular.

We are talking about a motion that I raised in the House back on December 5, 2002, in which $72 million were taken away from this program by the unanimous consent of the House. All members of the House agreed that the firearms program should be reduced by that amount.

That does lead to questions as to: How is this program operating fully now? How is it that the government is continuing to fund this program? What are the sources of the funding that has continued?

The reports that have been brought before the House of Commons, the Hession report, also challenged the ability of the government to continue to fund this program without borrowing from other departments or borrowing from other areas.

The Auditor General also spoke of Parliament being kept in the dark, which is a substantial and damning statement to hear from the Auditor General.

We know that Bill C-10A was rammed through the Senate and will be coming back to us asking for more money for this particular program. The government is now scrambling to get this program fully funded through a piecemeal piece of legislation that has been picked apart in the other place and that will be sent back here. Now it is trying to shunt this issue to one side while millions more are going into the program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically refer you to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , Marleau and Montpetit, where it states at page 741, and I would ask for the Chair's particular attention to this point:

Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts up to,--

And I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, “up to”:

--but not exceeding, the amounts set out in the Estimates for the purposes specified in the Votes.

We know, as a result of that December 5 motion, the government specifically reduced, unanimously, in the House, $72 million from the budget to operate the firearms program.

How is it, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton and other members of the House ask, that this registry is still operating at full capacity? How can that be? The spirit of that vote is being violated by the Minister of Justice continuing to operate this program. The spirit and intention of the House in reducing the funds by $72 million was obviously a signal that we were not supporting the continuation of the firearms program.

I would suggest that the hon. member has made a very salient and relevant point when he asks: Where is the money coming from? How is it that Parliament is permitting this to continue? How is it that the minister is continuing to fund this program?

The new budget is supposed to be coming forth. There is no doubt in my mind that there will be an attempt to reduce by some other amount, whether it be a dollar or more, and back door this funding for the program as we have seen in the past.

I would suggest that now is the time to cut this off, to put an end to this ridiculous, retroactive use of taxpayer money to fund a firearms program that is not working, that is not protecting Canadians.

The Minister of Justice is being misleading when he talks about Canadians being for gun control. This is not gun control. This--

[The Speaker]

I think the member has gone well off the question of privilege that was raised, so we will move on to the hon. government House leader.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-establish a few facts.

First, the estimates were reduced at the request of the minister. It is at the request of the minister that the amounts were reduced, transmitted through me to other members of the House, and then later the amounts were reduced.

The Chair will remember how the motion was moved or allegedly moved by consent. Perhaps that is secondary, but what was alleged is factually incorrect.

With regard to the issue of the estimates, what has been reduced is the size of the supplementary estimates. No program has been cancelled. The House did not vote to cancel gun control. I never heard anyone say on the floor of the House “Mr. Speaker, I move that we cancel gun control and that program be annulled”. As a matter of fact, funds to forward the program were there long before, and continue, as we all know.

We did not cancel a particular program and no one ever suggested that we did. Proof of that is that hon. members across were asking questions about the gun registry program as late as a day ago. Would they logically have been asking yesterday in the House of Commons about a program that they knew had ceased to exist months ago? No, Mr. Speaker.

This is less than genuine. What we are hearing today is an allegation that the program was cancelled months ago. No such program was cancelled.

I think I speak for the majority of the members of the House and the majority of Canadians when I say that gun control, the registry of firearms in Canada, still enjoys the favour of the majority of Canadians. That is a fact.

[The Speaker]

I would caution the hon. government House leader, as he was keen to point out that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough seemed to stray from the mark.

He appears to be straying away from the mark too. We are dealing with a question of privilege and I know he will want to stick to the point.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Speaker. There is an allegation of a conspiracy to deceive. That is as well factually inaccurate. I am responding to what was raised previously. There is no such conspiracy on the part of the hon. Minister of Justice, nor do I believe anyone else in the government, to deceive anyone. The amount of the appropriation was reduced. That is a fact. This is the amount of an appropriation in a supplementary estimate, not the final amount of the overall year, not even the initial amount. This is the amount of an increase in a supplementary estimate and nothing else.

Then it was alleged by, I believe, the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough that Bill C-10A was going to increase the amount levied to pay for the firearms registry program. The bill in question, as just about everybody in the House knows, and I recognize why some hon. members being otherwise occupied would not know, reduces the cost of gun control by some $3 million to $3.5 million a month. How on earth does that constitute increasing the cost of gun control? It has nothing to do with it. That was nothing better than an editorial comment.

[An hon. member]

That is not the subject he is supposed to speak on. Why is he allowed to speak about anything, Mr. Speaker?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the hon. member is a bit agitated.

[An hon. member]

I am not agitated.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the estimates in question, contrary to what was alleged, were carried. The estimates were carried. The appropriation bill was carried in the House of Commons. It was passed. It was passed by the other place and it became law, and it is to this day the law of the land. So in fact, the estimates carried and the appropriations carried.

It may be quite true that the first print of the bill was different from what finally passed, but it is not true to say that the minister's estimates were so-called repudiated. That is factually incorrect. The minister's estimates and the overall estimates of the government were carried by this House, the other place, and later proclaimed into law when Your Honour appeared before the bar of the Senate and I was there in my capacity as House leader to see the carriage of those estimates.

That is incorrect. In fact, the question of privilege that we have before the House today is not one. The minister did nothing that offends the privileges of the House. Quite the contrary, he has respected the House as he always does.

[The Speaker]

I am reluctant to hear more on this matter. Every party has had participation in the dispute, but if the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast is very brief and very relevant, I will hear him for a few minutes. I am not going to let him rattle on the way some other hon. members may have done.